What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

self | February 11, 2004 | little jeremiah

[little jeremiah]

Okay, class. Raise your hands! Let's hear some more ideas.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

Finally (I admit it's after dark) I wrote my piece - I hope you can add your ideas to it. Time to get off our duffs (I admit I sit on mine way too much) and DO something!

If anyone has good links to anything of interest, put 'em up.

Later, when we've done some of these plans, those with more money can put up bail.

[Antoninus]

A little ridicule goes a long way, too...



If we make it a serious liability to support this, we win.

[Askel5]

Folks could start by rescinding their "right" to non-procreative sex and their "right" to have children by artificial means.

Both artificial realities render heterosexual marriage indistinguishable from homosexual marriage.

Marriage being the basis of Family, after all.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I think a coordinated activism would help. If we're watching a show and it's pushing things we just don't want, take note of the sponsors and post them. Let's all write and politely tell them our concern and then boycott those who ignore us. Money talks. If they lose money, they won't support these programs. Without support, the shows go away. It's the only power we have. Let's use it.

[little jeremiah]

I agree. Those are examples of what happens when people use the yardstick of instant gratification to measure happiness. I mean, if instant personal gratification is the only measure of happiness, then why stop at man+woman? Why stop at homosexuality? Etc.

The point is, sexual pleasure, no matter what kind, is not the highest pleasure or happiness there is. Gotta look somewhere else.

[Old Professer]

That just isn't so; when two lesbians decide to live together it because they don't want to live with men and when two men do the same it is for the same reason.

When a man and a woman marry or live together they do so with the acknowledged risk of a pregnancy ensuing and they may not always want to have a child at the time or maybe never but they do not generally marry for the legal benefits alone.

The homosexuals of today want to marry because they want to reorder society, a disease as old as any plague known to mankind; sure there are some legal benefits that would accrue by virtue of the recognition of their marriage but none that can't currently be granted by one party to the other by law absent marriage.

The business of recreational sex is a bit of argumentative nonsense because in marriage sex often becomes a duty rather than fun and every couple can attest to that if they are honest people.

I was on the verge of developing a nascent sympathy for gays who were closeted out of their fear of loathing but this current bunch are but a batch of buttheads and I wouldn't give you a dime for a dollar's worth of them.

[mvonfr]

For a different approach to the Gay Power issues, please see the post which I've originally written for a different forum:

I have nothing against the gays. But every time a social idea is suggested I try to examine it from the point of the impact on the society.

Now, I did not do a real analysis in the case of the Gay marriage and I would not do it (mostly because it is not an interesting issue for me); but I did at least look at it.

Lets take just one issue involved: the insurance. Legalization of the Gay Marriage would force the private employers and the government cover gay couples.

It appears that the cost of such insurance would be considerably higher than that for normal marriage. The reason is a very high HIV infection rate within the gay community (Asacr, it is close to 50% in SF). As I recall, the HIV-suppressant drugs cost alone are about 10K/year. This is a large amount.

It is sufficiently large to raise medical costs for everybody (and, if you check, you'll find them skyrocketing already). For the federal government this means bigger budget deficits; but for small/medium companies this means cutting down on insuring straight families.

The impact on society would be quite unpleasant. Some families with children would lose the insurance; some would have to pay more for it. Additionally, small companies would have darn good reasons to discriminate against gays.

The costs of gay healthcare are unproportionally high, insisting on it means trying to get an unproportional share of resources.

Perhaps someone can get better estimates; this is an issue that may affect millions of people.

[little jeremiah]

Add to this the fact that male homosexuals have a very poor rate of monogamous relationships (even so-called long term relationships often have the understanding that there will be outside sex). So even if a couple of homosexuals don't currently have HIV, they may have it down the line, and the drugs cost upwards of $10K.

[Askel5]

=== The homosexuals of today want to marry because they want to reorder society,

They're over a generation behind the heteros who deconstructed both family and marriage over a generation ago by claiming "rights" to the failsafe birth control which precipitated abortion (the lethal assault on the weakest member of the Family) and using "no fault" divorce and "palimony" among other legal conceits to strip them of the freedom to bind themselves.

Among the legal benefits of marriage for homosexuals IS INDEED the "right" to have their own children as they see fit (or can afford ... a third, for-profit party being vital to all homosexual "conception.")

And it was the heteros who etched that "right" in stone for them as well.

I have sympathy for homosexuals ... even those cynical enough to want just what cash they can get for their "domestic partner" (another hetero advance).

They've been deluded by we sexually liberated heteros into thinking the State's some kind of egalitarian god who'll not only dream up whatever we need in the way of rights to make our "marriages" the most selfish of all possible relationships but will ensure that everyone gets an equal shot at bliss in the mutually-beneficial Economic arrangement one has with one's current squeeze in our serial polygamy society.

[mvonfr]

Yes, sure.

But keep in mind that 10K for drugs is not the full bill. Hospitalizations, opportunistic infections, etc. -- I did not mention these since I cannot estimate them.

I hope that what I wrote can be used. It is certainly non anti-gay and should withstand the usual "bigotry" screams. Perhaps we should try to change the discussion toward the costs to the society and children from the "Gay Marriage" idea.

[Askel5]

=== Add to this the fact that male homosexuals have a very poor rate of monogamous relationships (even so-called long term relationships often have the understanding that there will be outside sex)


How is this different from heteros these days?

As for the monies scammed from insurers to pay for AIDS cocktails, it's just a matter of the pharmas CONTINUING to use homosexuals as the cash cows they infected with Hep-C and AIDS in the first place courtesy of the SAME tainted plasma derivatives that infected 90% of American hemophiliacs as well.

Hemophiliacs are not the "renew-able" resource, however, that are homosexuals. Jocelyn Elders' sorts have no hope of educating a person into the masturbatory, narcissistic sexual model that is most conducive to homosexuality and the increasingly state-regulated "private sex lives" of mock heteros whose financial layout for birth control (and sometimes even abortion) as funded by insurers certainly adds up to -- if not exceeds -- the paltry AIDS cocktails of homosexuals.

[The Red Zone]

By purchasing Lively's materials (or reprints from other groups such as NAARTH

FYI that's "NARTH". http://www.narth.com

[longtermmemmory]

be active on school board elections.

Support the Boy Scouts with money and your votes.

[little jeremiah]

One thing is that homosexuals are WILDLY promiscuous compared to normal people. Of course figures vary, but the average male homosexual "committed" relationship lasts something like 1.7 years. The average number of sex partners for male homosexuals is huge - 50 was the smallest number I've ever seen, 100s is very common. No way heterosexuals compare to this. Add this to the anonymous sex and bath house scene common to the "gay" life, and it shows that homosexuals are in a class by themselves.

[Old Professer]

I can tell a pig by its squeal in a pack of dogs but I can't figure out why the dogs don't mind.

[little jeremiah]

It is certainly non anti-gay and should withstand the usual "bigotry" screams.

Your points about costs and insurance are well-founded and logical.

At this point, the truths about the homosexual lifestyle need to be strong, to the point, and unafraid of criticisms of "hater" and "bigot". They've shut us up for too long. Time for US to "come out of the closet"!

Kids need to be saved. They don't care about insurance figures.

[longtermmemmory]

recruiting of the young is a serious issue to be addressed. It may be a simple as teaching children that homsexuality is wrong.

[Askel5]

=== But keep in mind that 10K for drugs is not the full bill. Hospitalizations, opportunistic infections, etc. --


Keep in mind that $500 or so a year for every woman taking birth control is not the full bill.

Cervical cancer, breast cancer, blood clots, warts, syphilis, Hepatitis, gonorhhea, etc. ... they all add up to over-burden with "elective" diseases and complications a medical system that's got its hands full trying to make women look like Drag Queens by providing them plastic breasts and boyish hips ... and dealing with the inevitable fallout.

And given the fact that abortion remains the most popular of all elective surgeries should give one pause. At $300-900 bucks a pop to kill a kid, those costs surely are staggering and the damage at least as patently lethal as that inflicted by homosexuals who manufacture excess lives sacrificed for "humanitarian" use by the sorts of Profiteers from whom our President procured his already-been-killed "stem lines".


To the related costs of heterosexuality as practiced post-Sexual Revolution, I'd also add the chit for anti-depressants and sexual aids necessary, it seems, to stay on an even keel and keep one's performance up to par when partaking of a more Evolutionary model of sex as based on the non-monogamous and sterile of the animal kingdom. I doubt very seriously Bob Dole's hawking a drug for which insurers won't pay up, big-time, to the pharmas.

If folks are going to decry homosexuals and their "elective" contracting of AIDS, I think the same finger ought to point to the costs of providing scrips for Viagra or treatment for the insanity that is surgically implanting toxins in your body for Effect.


=== Perhaps we should try to change the discussion toward the costs to the society and children from the "Gay Marriage" idea.

The costs to society from the "Hetero Marriage" idea as currently premised in the courts and most Enlightened minds today far exceed that which the homosexuals are incurring.

The notion we're protecting anything like a sacred institution at present from the evil homosexuals is ludicrous. Let them have their State marriages ... it's a drop in the bucket of what the Heteros currently are inflicting on all.